Interesting reading, GordMay. Charity is giving with no expectation of reward. When some billionaire gives to some organisation that furthers his own political ideals or ambitions, this in no way resembles charity.

Whenever I give a helping hand to some stranger and they ask how to repay me, I always say, don't worry about me, just do the same for someone else and we're square. That's my definition of charity. Not entirely fair but p'haps 'billionaires and charity' is an oxymoron? "A rich man has as much chance of entering the kingdom as a camel...' Gord will know where to find that one.

olddan-
IIRC the IRS only requires receipts for donations over $250. I'd side with the CPA and say document everything (and help bury the IRS in paper(G) but also, you can still donate anonymously AND leave a paper trail. Just use money orders, your name is not on them but you can give the IRS a photocopy of your receipt along with your claim. That's still substantial documentation. (Or, just keep each donation under $250?)
charitynavigator.org and others make it refreshingly simple to see what percent of a charity is absorbed in overhead. Some are very good, others...obviously are spending a lot of money on making it "fun" for the donors, or sending out too many solicitations.
My parents wondered why they were getting so much junk mail for donations. I said that's easy, once you made one large donation, your name got put on a list. A charity can make more than $4 just by renting out the name of one donor, one time, from that "big donors list" to other charities. A few of them--all too few--will honor a request to keep your name off all lists, acknowledge the donation and never bother the donor for anything else.
I suppose the Salvation Army (ignoring their agenda) should get kudos for the Santa Claus buckets they set out every year. Totally anonymous!

Be insulted all you like but the fact remains several articles have come out after the hurricanes with the same dollar value $1.2 million being "donated" by celebrities.

Seems to me the number is likely a tax cutoff and they get look at me value from the "adoring fans" as well.

It's still insulting. There's no magic about the $1.2 million you cite. The limitations are 30% and 50% of AGI. Plenty of people donate anonymously. There is no magic to $1.2 million. No tax cutoff, nothing. I have no idea where you're getting that information.

Regardless of taxes, the tax benefit never exceeds 39.6% of the amount donated.

So would you prefer celebrities stop making donations for things like hurricane relief? Often the name is exposed, not by the celebrity, but the charity.

GordMay,
For many years I would donate anonymously then my CPA reminded me, Uncle Sam does not trust anyone. So now, I have to request documentation.
Giving cash may seem to be the fastest way of "giving" but sadly, a lot of the cash 'disappears' into administrative costs.

I am old enough to remember when a handshake was a contract and a person's word was good as gold.

Per the current crises.... PR's warehouses are filling up but, according to the news, the infrastructure is 'totaled' so getting it out where it is needed is next to impossible.
I am more than disappointed it took this administration so long to respond. Alas, help can never arrive too soon nor in the amount needed.
The hospital ship will not leave for a week, for good reasons. Have to get stores on board, making sure all the operating rooms are properly stocked and reassigning the necessary and needed medical personnel are onboard.
Logistics and administration always slows down the needed responses, thank to the 'bean counters.'
What I would like to see is an accounting AFTER the crises has been resolved and the immediate prosecution of those involved in the 'disappearance' of the aid sent.

All donations must be documented for tax purposes. Sometimes when the charity is instructed to keep it anonymous except for the official recording of it, they don't comply.

As to waste or misuse of contributions, I advise anyone donating even modest amounts to study carefully the organization they're giving it too. I'm very much a skeptic and even with the most careful selection you take some chance. Now when giving large amounts you can specify it's use, restrict it, and require reporting back to you.

There are many major charities that upon looking at their financials, I would never give to. I would also say many charities and other well known people do a lousy job of checking out who they are giving to. Cancer is a very good example. There are dozens of organizations soliciting funds with Cancer in their names. Some use the money very efficiently for it's stated use. Others spend theirs on overhead and fundraising and are left with very little for the persons in need.

Money interests me, i like cruising and never want to work again thus i try to understand where we are regarding world finances.

I love numbers, they are non emotional and never lie, the numbers always tell the story. Theres currently no investing in the world, just speculation, historically low interest rates coupled with loose lending regulations (think 2008) are and have severly distorted all markets resulting is massively and historically high valuations.

Misallocation of funds is creating very bad"" investments"".

Fractual banking is at the heart of this problem, which is structural and cant be fixed.

We are now at a stage in imho that the focus should be on return of your money not getting a return on your money.

But hey i could be wrong, im hedging my bets.

Using any cryptocurrencies to achieve that? I'd recommend starting at bitcoin.org and getmonero.org

Wonder if Gates is trying to make up for past enethical business behavior. And I question his large donation for the adoption of the unvetted Common Core where he expects Microsoft to be awarded large contracts for student testing.

Wonder if Gates is trying to make up for past enethical business behavior. And I question his large donation for the adoption of the unvetted Common Core where he expects Microsoft to be awarded large contracts for student testing.

So he should only support those charities you approve of? But that's irrelevant because his past should not allow him to donate? Look at all his donations that have no possible economic benefit to him. Also, consider he's aged and matured and perhaps changed some.

I just don't get a thread beating up on persons who contribute to non-profits. That's a long way that some here are taking their dislike of wealthy people, however they choose to define it. Just look at all the charities, some good and some bad, but understand most of them wouldn't be able to accomplish much without the large contributions they receive from wealthy individuals. It doesn't make the wealthy better or worse than anyone else, simply they have more money to give.

There are also some extremely wealthy people who never give anything or who give shockingly little. Those, it would seem, would be better targets than targeting those who actually give large amounts. There are those even with funds in their names but none of their personal money goes to the funds.

Using any cryptocurrencies to achieve that? I'd recommend starting at bitcoin.org and getmonero.org

Im yet to understand their intrinsic value, it seems purely speculative to me, people arent buying a currency their buying a piece of code hoping someone further down the track pays more for it.

In saying that ,I really have very little understanding of cryptos, they could be the future and i may regret not purchasing some.....but at this stage anything that goes up 300℅ per year i am weary of, smells like a tulip to me, but im not certain of that.